Abstract

As rural communities experience amenity-driven population growth and globalizing cultures and economic systems, community land-use regimes must react to and implement emerging land-use ideologies. A growing community must balance the interests of the entities that benefit from growth – i.e., the growth machine – and the potentially restructuring community understandings of the purpose of land. This conflict is particularly intense in areas that benefit both economically and culturally from high quality natural amenities – one part of the community might seek to increase development to benefit from those amenities, while another might seek to protect them. This article engages in a theoretical and empirical exploration that seeks to answer a single question: Why, in the face of those competing land-use ideologies, might a community choose to adopt a more resource-protective, or resource-sustaining, land-use regime? This article follows three distinct theoretical pathways to where they converge in two specific communities, and then engages in an empirical assessment of the land-use conditions on the ground in those communities. I ultimately conclude that because a community can only understand the value of a particular choice by experiencing its effects, a legal evolution toward resource-protective, or resource-sustaining, land-use regimes only occurs after the valued resources are harmed – a result we might like to avoid. For that reason, the crux on the path toward sustainability is to accurately imagine – before directly witnessing – the consequences of the alternatives available to us.

SSRN Rankings

About SSRN

We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content.By continuing, you agree to the use of cookies. To learn more, visit our Cookies page.
This page was processed by aws-apollo1 in 0.141 seconds